CSS Forums - View Single Post

Codename Hijazi · #**613** Wednesday, July 18, 2012

July 18, 2012

ISI political cell

There should no longer be any ambiguity about the role of intelligence agencies in Pakistani politics. This Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) could not legally operate a political cell, and that the cell, whether or not it existed at present, was unlawful ‘void ab initio’ — from the very start. With this ruling, the SC has not only proved wrong all those who said the proceedings of the Asghar Khan case would be mere window-dressing but also made a definitive statement that the non-uniformed aren’t the only ones accountable for their transgressions. Indeed, there could be no bigger check on the extra-judicial prerogatives of Pakistan’s secret agencies than a Supreme Court ruling that explicitly outlaws their political forays and makes it abundantly clear that the affairs of the state have to be run strictly in accordance with the Constitution and that no functionary can interfere in this process in ways other than those outlined in the Constitution. The symbolic importance of the ruling is thus clear: the commonsensical idea that the intelligence agencies should only engage in the tasks they are mandated with and leave politicians and the political process well alone has now received judicial validity in the form of a ruling. This is a monumental development in a country that has been ruled for more than half of its life by the security establishment.

However, the proceedings of the Asghar Khan case thus far also make clear that the court understands that the process of bringing intelligence agencies into the fold of the law will be a gradual, incremental one.

Thus, what it is striving to do with rulings is establish a principle, gently reform an institutional mindset and slowly shepherd the security agencies into the realm of the legal. That the CJ also took the opportunity to make pro-democracy comments and rule out the possibility of a Bangladesh model — an extended interim government consisting of technocrats with the backing of the judiciary and the army — is also proof that the court will not put its weight behind any configuration, or institution, that overreaches its domain and resists constitutional control. On the other hand, on July 11, Senator Farhatullah Babar withdrew his proposed draft bill pertaining to the accountability of the ISI, after submitting the bill in his personal capacity on July 5. While one can only speculate about the pressures he may or may not have had to face after floating the bill, the fact is that the SC has itself said on several occasions and in numerous orders — including in the curious case of journalist Saleem Shahzad’s death — that accountability of security, especially intelligence, forces will not be possible until legislation is introduced for this purpose. Thus, parliament also needs to put its weight behind attempts to increase accountability of the ISI and assert rightful civilian control.

In the ultimate analysis, the SC’s ruling about the political cell will be truly meaningful only if those who violate the constitution and the oath to their office in the name of intelligence gathering and national security are brought to justice. For this, legislation is key. So, while the court has done what it could do, parliament too must rise to the occasion and play its role.

UK immigration

This time, the call to rethink globalisation isn’t coming from the global south. As the UK puts into effect the crackdown on immigration Conservative premier David Cameron has been talking about for over a year, its government has predictably met with charges of xenophobia and racism. On a deeper level, however, the changed policy merely reflects the increasing realisation that the neoliberals don’t always know best.

The move towards tighter borders has, like everywhere else, been criticised by businesses. They point out that given its aging population, Britain needs more workers (read taxpayers); that the welfare state has created dole addicts who don’t want the jobs the poor migrants get and that the move will compromise investment and the hiring of the ‘best and brightest’ the UK has always wanted to draw. The clincher, they argue, is the fact that universities in Britain make a staggering eight billion pounds in fees from international students. However, as the UK government has discovered — like many economies in the global south before them — good business doesn’t make good politics.

According to the EU statistical office, the UK has 4.5 million foreign immigrants, of whom 2.4 million are from non-EU countries. This total comprises just over seven percent of the total population (read voters). There’s a reason former premier Gordon Brown’s war cry of “British jobs for British workers” found resonance within the country; a reason the Labour Party internally blames Brown and Tony Blair’s relaxed policies on immigration for their 2010 defeat in the general elections and a reason Labour’s Ed Miliband is now advocating tighter immigration controls. The greatest good for the greatest number of people is essentially a question of perception, not hard numbers or inherent ‘fairness’. And so politics, not economics.

It is in this context that Cameron’s tirades against ‘forced marriages’, the ‘unwillingness’ of migrants to ‘integrate’ that causes ‘discomfort’ in neighbourhoods and the supposed pressures on schools, housing and healthcare need to be analysed.

The increasing marginalisation of the Emiratis in Dubai over three decades was rendered possible by an unaccountable system of governance, which has still not been able to fully contain dissent. The UK doesn’t have that advantage. And so, even Miliband is now pushing for an early warning system that will help the government identify sectors potentially vulnerable to domestic shortfalls in labour supply. In times of recession particularly, it’s local jobs for local people, for local votes.